Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
74 online now:
kjsimons, Tangle (2 members, 72 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,164 Year: 4,276/6,534 Month: 490/900 Week: 14/182 Day: 2/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Always a laugh
toff
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 75 (4189)
02-12-2002 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by TrueCreation
02-08-2002 1:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Thats their Creationist accusations, not making relevance to creation science. Creationism and Creation science are different concepts.


No, that's creation 'science' (which is, in any case, identical to creationism, except that they try to pretend it's 'scientific'). See the quotes from the ICR's principles - the largest creation 'science' institute in the world.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TrueCreation, posted 02-08-2002 1:14 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 10:12 PM toff has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 75 (4456)
02-13-2002 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by toff
02-12-2002 1:45 AM


"No, that's creation 'science' (which is, in any case, identical to creationism, except that they try to pretend it's 'scientific'). See the quotes from the ICR's principles - the largest creation 'science' institute in the world."
--Creation Science and Faith are intertwined to form Creationism. Thus Creationism has included faith and science, and is unscientific in its whole, contrary to creation science. Do we see the model here yet?

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by toff, posted 02-12-2002 1:45 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by LudvanB, posted 02-13-2002 10:20 PM TrueCreation has replied
 Message 66 by toff, posted 02-14-2002 2:16 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 75 (4460)
02-13-2002 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 10:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"No, that's creation 'science' (which is, in any case, identical to creationism, except that they try to pretend it's 'scientific'). See the quotes from the ICR's principles - the largest creation 'science' institute in the world."
--Creation Science and Faith are intertwined to form Creationism. Thus Creationism has included faith and science, and is unscientific in its whole, contrary to creation science. Do we see the model here yet?


Yeah but without prior belief in the Bible,there wouldn't be any creation science...and since belief in the Bible is completely unscientific,then the very fondation of creation "science" is flawed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 10:12 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 11:30 PM LudvanB has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 75 (4461)
02-13-2002 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by LudvanB
02-13-2002 10:20 PM


"Yeah but without prior belief in the Bible,there wouldn't be any creation science...and since belief in the Bible is completely unscientific,then the very fondation of creation "science" is flawed."
--I guess we still don't understand the full model, but atleast were getting somewhere. Creation science is simply 'science' that is given the name creation science by the perspective of the higher classified 'creationism' in the hierarchy. Creation science and faith form creationism. Creation science for instance, is science, and looked upon as 'creation science' for its interperetation for a young earth, which is fully evidence/science based. When looked upon by Creationism, creationism uses creation science to then apply it to the biblical doctrine, which is why it is intertwined with faith. Thus Creation science is not based on the validity of the bible or faith in it to substantiate it as scientific, it simply is.

------------------

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 02-13-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by LudvanB, posted 02-13-2002 10:20 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by LudvanB, posted 02-14-2002 1:20 AM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 75 (4472)
02-14-2002 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 11:30 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Yeah but without prior belief in the Bible,there wouldn't be any creation science...and since belief in the Bible is completely unscientific,then the very fondation of creation "science" is flawed."
--I guess we still don't understand the full model, but atleast were getting somewhere. Creation science is simply 'science' that is given the name creation science by the perspective of the higher classified 'creationism' in the hierarchy. Creation science and faith form creationism. Creation science for instance, is science, and looked upon as 'creation science' for its interperetation for a young earth, which is fully evidence/science based. When looked upon by Creationism, creationism uses creation science to then apply it to the biblical doctrine, which is why it is intertwined with faith. Thus Creation science is not based on the validity of the bible or faith in it to substantiate it as scientific, it simply is.


But the whole creation science approach the question of human origin with the preconceived and pre-accepted conviction that the earth was "created" by someone,meaning that its comming into being is the result of the act or acts of an intelligent mind. The word creation is in itself a biblical word in this context. The reason why i doubt that creation science IS science is because the conclusion that the world was made by God is reached BEFORE any study of the question is even done. And with that prior conviction in mind,creationists then begin to gather evidence they can interpret in a way that fits their pre-reached conclusion. I call this approach flawed because it will irrevocably taint your interpretation of the evidence you come across,something i pointed out was very evident in your arguments,given that you dont seem to hesitate to latch on just about any possible evidence supporting your position without stopping to consider the likelyhood of it,something that EVERY scientist of every field should always do as a matter of course. It also means that by definition,you will resist evidence that cast doubts on your preconceived conclusion and try to forcibly interpret them in a more acceptable light to your POV instead of examining the evidence for what it actually says and then letting IT guide you to the conclusion IT actually supports,whatever that may be.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 11:30 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-14-2002 3:15 PM LudvanB has replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 75 (4474)
02-14-2002 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by TrueCreation
02-13-2002 10:12 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"No, that's creation 'science' (which is, in any case, identical to creationism, except that they try to pretend it's 'scientific'). See the quotes from the ICR's principles - the largest creation 'science' institute in the world."
--Creation Science and Faith are intertwined to form Creationism. Thus Creationism has included faith and science, and is unscientific in its whole, contrary to creation science. Do we see the model here yet?

I see the model, certainly - but it's false. There is no such thing as creation 'science'. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. It is merely a label put on creationism in an attempt to make it sound more than what it is - a religious belief. Now, if you say it's a religious belief, well and good; to attempt to call it a science is simply dishonest.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by TrueCreation, posted 02-13-2002 10:12 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 4:20 PM toff has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 75 (4508)
02-14-2002 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by LudvanB
02-14-2002 1:20 AM


quote:
Originally posted by LudvanB:
The reason why i doubt that creation science IS science is because the conclusion that the world was made by God is reached BEFORE any study of the question is even done.

Don't you think it could be the same case with evolutionists? If not, why not? What is to stop scientists from interpreting the evidence to fit their preconcieved theory? (Although an opinion, I don't think peer-reviewed articles cleanse the bias, because scientists are usually INTERPRETING facts, not BENDING them. Therefore, it would be hard to identify incorrect work, since it is only an interpretation. What scientists may not always realize is that there is an alternate interpretation.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by LudvanB, posted 02-14-2002 1:20 AM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by lbhandli, posted 02-14-2002 3:31 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action
 Message 70 by LudvanB, posted 02-14-2002 10:46 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 75 (4510)
02-14-2002 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cobra_snake
02-14-2002 3:15 PM


The scientific method is designed to test theories to determine which fits the evidence more. This continued reliance on the fiction that different interpretations that are valid is a crutch to avoid discussing evidence. Any theory must be falsifiable and those potential falsifications can be tested. Therefore saying there are different interpretations is rather meaningless. The scientific method was designed to distinguish between inferences that are supported and inferences that are not supported.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-14-2002 3:15 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 75 (4514)
02-14-2002 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by toff
02-14-2002 2:16 AM


"I see the model, certainly - but it's false. There is no such thing as creation 'science'. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. It is merely a label put on creationism in an attempt to make it sound more than what it is - a religious belief. Now, if you say it's a religious belief, well and good; to attempt to call it a science is simply dishonest."
--So, your argument is, because you don't like my model for whatever reason, (I see it as no doubt, it being too right thus you must attempt to validify your assertion by saying it is false) you think that you can just pass it by and go right back down to ground zero.
--Tell me then, what is wrong with the model? For you to argue with Creation science, you must argue with that, do you have any more ammo?

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by toff, posted 02-14-2002 2:16 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by toff, posted 02-15-2002 3:11 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 75 (4530)
02-14-2002 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Cobra_snake
02-14-2002 3:15 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Don't you think it could be the same case with evolutionists?

LUD: No i dont think so. We spend over 3000 years being indoctrinated in this belief that God created the earth in 6 days because thats what was writen in the Bible and until a mere century and a half ago,questionning the legitimacy of those claims most often led you to a gruesome demise. Creation has been accepted as fact for so long for the simple reason that before Lyel the Darwin,NOBODY SPEND MUCH TIME PONDERING THE QUESTION. The Bible was accepted without much question but as soon as we began looking seriously at the evidence,we discovered that it told a very different story than the book of genesis. But society is still biased toward creation and a many scientists who study evolution have to contend with this indoctrination both in themselve and in society as a whole. Some have even admited to me that they study evolution to see for themselves how we have been duped by the church for so damn long.

If not, why not?

LUD:i dont know...ethics maybe? Something the church is not reknown for btw...how long did it hide its rampant pedophelia problem from the society...

What is to stop scientists from interpreting the evidence to fit their preconcieved theory? Although an opinion, I don't think peer-reviewed articles cleanse the bias, because scientists are usually INTERPRETING facts, not BENDING them.

LUD:everyone interprets facts...thats nothing new...its the basis of science. But what differenciates creationists from REAL scientists is their unrelenting allegiance to the Bible. Falsify the current theories of evolution(Good luck!) and scientists will simply close up shop and go looking for other fields to study. Falsify the Bible,even a little and duck as fast as you can to avoid the backlash. Also,when sceintists interpret a fact,they always follow a model of probability analisis...something creationists,including those frequenting this board dont really bother with.

Therefore, it would be hard to identify incorrect work, since it is only an interpretation. What scientists may not always realize is that there is an alternate interpretation.

LUD:Its actually quite easy to spot an improbable interpretation of the facts and many scientists actually make a carreer of exposing fraudulent interpretations. Science is self correcting,always was,always will be,which is why creationism can never be considered science...Falsify the theories of a previous scientists and you will be acclaimed as a smarter scientist...flasify the Bible and you will be hated by the believers,viewed as a heretic,and in their minds,condemned to burn in hell...



This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Cobra_snake, posted 02-14-2002 3:15 PM Cobra_snake has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 10:55 PM LudvanB has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 75 (4531)
02-14-2002 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by LudvanB
02-14-2002 10:46 PM


The thing is that creation science nor evolution deal with the origins, Creationists already have their answer by faith, and Evolution doesn't deal with origins, it is a completely different topic, though it is included in the entirty of these forums. Creation science does not deal with origins.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by LudvanB, posted 02-14-2002 10:46 PM LudvanB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by LudvanB, posted 02-14-2002 11:42 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
LudvanB
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 75 (4535)
02-14-2002 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by TrueCreation
02-14-2002 10:55 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
The thing is that creation science nor evolution deal with the origins, Creationists already have their answer by faith, and Evolution doesn't deal with origins, it is a completely different topic, though it is included in the entirty of these forums. Creation science does not deal with origins.


No they dont have the answer about origins...Faith in an explanation that suits you is not knowledge...Faith cant be taught,nor can it be shared. Its completely insubstancial and unsubstanciated. Have faith in your illogical fairy tales if it warms your heart but dont come here to pretend that this translate into actual knowledge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 10:55 PM TrueCreation has taken no action

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 75 (4537)
02-15-2002 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by TrueCreation
02-14-2002 4:20 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"I see the model, certainly - but it's false. There is no such thing as creation 'science'. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. It is merely a label put on creationism in an attempt to make it sound more than what it is - a religious belief. Now, if you say it's a religious belief, well and good; to attempt to call it a science is simply dishonest."
--So, your argument is, because you don't like my model for whatever reason, (I see it as no doubt, it being too right thus you must attempt to validify your assertion by saying it is false) you think that you can just pass it by and go right back down to ground zero.
--Tell me then, what is wrong with the model? For you to argue with Creation science, you must argue with that, do you have any more ammo?


I am arguing (in this thread, at least) about the model you are proposing that differentiates creationism (a religious belief) from creation science (a scientific discipline/area of study). I am not arguing (in this thread) against the beliefs of creationism. My sole point is that creation 'science' does not exist - all of it is merely an attempt to make creationism seem more 'respectable' to the outside world, by making it sound like a type of science. It's not. It's a religious belief. Creation 'science' does not in any way follow the scientific method; it is not a science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 4:20 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by TrueCreation, posted 02-15-2002 4:29 PM toff has taken no action

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 75 (4632)
02-15-2002 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by toff
02-15-2002 3:11 AM


"I am arguing (in this thread, at least) about the model you are proposing that differentiates creationism (a religious belief) from creation science (a scientific discipline/area of study). I am not arguing (in this thread) against the beliefs of creationism. My sole point is that creation 'science' does not exist - all of it is merely an attempt to make creationism seem more 'respectable' to the outside world, by making it sound like a type of science. It's not. It's a religious belief. Creation 'science' does not in any way follow the scientific method; it is not a science."
--If it so much does not quallify as worthy of the scientific method, would you care to give a reason besides restating your problem (which isn't the reason)? That is, give explination to your assertion, something to support it.

------------------


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by toff, posted 02-15-2002 3:11 AM toff has taken no action

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 4267 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 75 of 75 (8801)
04-22-2002 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by toff
02-06-2002 8:12 AM


What will become apparent TOFF is that the shape of the boundary of the organism on the map contains information (Wimla of the Brits suggested that ELEPHANTS were put where human populations WERE NOT)and that via a needed yoking of morphometrics with software testing metrics the Internet II standardization will turn this laugh into cash. We need people who can see this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by toff, posted 02-06-2002 8:12 AM toff has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022